Survivor Of Communist Cuba Defends 2nd Amendment or another old guy speaks

These sad but useful idiots within our population love to argue in the name of the state, constantly claiming that the ongoing restrictions of our
individual freedoms and constitutional rights are "for the greater good" of our society as a whole. They insist that even though the political
measures being taken in the U.S. today are almost identical to those implemented in communist police states, this time "things will be different".
This time, the collectivists will "get it right". Not surprising, though, is the fact that the vast majority of those that call for rights
restrictions and socialized mega-government have never actually lived under the kind of system they are demanding. They have absolutely NO idea what
it is really like, nor do they ever attempt to learn from those who comprehend full well.

Some people know. Some people have lived it. Some people have experienced the consequences first hand. And, for anyone with the intelligence to
listen, this is what they have to say about gun control and the path to tyranny...

I don't know that many Cubans who lived through the whole Castro take over but the few I have met are some of the strongest supporters of the 2d
amendment you will ever talk to. The Cuban in the video only speaks of what he experienced and saw with his own eyes...of course there are those who
believe it can not happen here even though day after day there are examples of our rights protected under the Constitution being eroded. Illegal
search and seizure at check points (money taken) and first and 10th amendment infringements make the headlines every month. So IMO if there is one
chance out of 10,000 that in 50 or 100 years we experience the same rape, pillage, and plunder by our own government that others have experienced
throughout the world then those who are pushing for removing firearms from the general population might want to do a rethink of their position. Yes I
know they won't cause it can't happen here.

Printz vs. United States, 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that the Congress could not force the States to conduct criminal background checks on gun
purchasers. This would have forced the state to use its own resources to accomplish the Federal mandate. This was also barred by the 10th Amendment.
The Feds got around this by making a national background check (they provide the resources) which is done on anyone purchasing a firearm from a dealer
or an individual selling a gun out of state to another individual which still has to go through a licensed dealer and background check.

If the states get together and amend the constitution and the 2d then O.K. the "will" of the people.
If some political party or person amends the constitution for their own purposes then they are in direct violation of the constitution and should be
tried in a court of law accordingly. IMO.

Actually kinda funny that I even care. Over these last couple of years I have been selling my firearms because I can not export them to my
house/country overseas. Yet I really do believe the America I grew up in had better watch what they wish for; the evidence is all around for those who
would see.

When Pol Pot was killing teachers and anyone with an education I saw first hand the results of a disarmed population. No one came to the rescue until
a couple of million were exterminated. But yea, can't happen here just paranoid conspiracy black helicopter type thinking.

None of the guys I met were as well placed. Many did feel betrayed by the Bay of Pigs fiasco but loved this country and the freedoms.....They must all
be dead or very old now for the ones I knew were hot blooded fighters... I certainly would not want to be the one to tell them to turn in their guns.
Kinda like the old guy in the video; talk is cheap but some people actually mean what they say.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.